What are we composing for?

I compose to get rid of excess creativity that gets clogged in me. So composition for me is a way to release creativity in a fun safe and enjoyable matter. Now do I wish my works to be performed? Well heck yeah I do, but I'm sure that not everyone will. So what I say is to build up your repetoire slowly..start off small, have a piano composition performed. Perhaps someone will like it and have a quartet performed..and then an orchestral work and etc. Personally I think that is the best way to go, you can't just go up to a symphony orchestra and say..hey perform this symphony for me. I'm sure it doesn't work like that. But anyway..I just compose for my enjoyment

Personally I think that is the best way to go, you can't just go up to a symphony orchestra and say..hey perform this symphony for me. I'm sure it doesn't work like that. But anyway..I just compose for my enjoyment

It's likely to be rejected, yes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. It can't hurt you, and who knows, if the person in charge really likes your piece they just might do it. But you might consider first which orchestra to approach. Not all are equally fond of taking risks or supporting young composers. Generally, the bigger they are and the more they depend on making money, the less likely they'll do it.

But sometimes you just need the courage to do something a bit crazy.

To get back again on the main topic, when it comes to composing I think for most composers it's some sort of compromise anyways. On one extreme, you could just write solos for the most easily available instruments, not too hard but still good enough for showing off the abilities of the player, not too long, etc. It will be rather easy to get people to play your pieces like this, but the question is whether with all these restrictions you can still truly do what you want, musically, or whether you're just prostituting yourself. On the other extreme you might write music that conforms entirely to your musical visions, but which is unplayably hard, requires huge quantities of rare instruments and lasts ten hours, but you probably will never actually hear your music nor will anybody else.

Usually it's something in the middle, sometimes leaning more to one, or the other side. You might for example write with the definite intention of getting it performed, but still require good performers, use uncommon techniques and will require time, effort and money to perform. Or you might write without the definite intention of getting a performance, but still write everything so it could be performed, if someone was willing to do it. Personally, I'm facing the question of practicability versus "musical vision" quite often. For example, currently, while working on my piece for three pianos, I'm trying to decide whether to retune some select strings of the pianos. On one hand I'd really like to do it and I could better put into effect what I want, but on the other hand I don't really need it, and it will make getting a performance quite a bit harder (many institutions, including my conservatory, are rather strict about preparing their pianos and they usually only have a single one that you can prepare/retune). A compromise would be just requiring a few keys of a single piano to be retuned. And at the same time I'm pondering whether I need a conductor for the piece or not, and if I want to do it without one, how I could simplify the rhythmic organisation to make the coordination possible.

I compose because I feel a need to write music. I personally don't feel like I am "communicating" anything to the audience; I am just moving particles in air. As for composing for people, I enjoy writing for actual people, and the writing is more personal and meaningful knowing I am doing that.

However, I feel just as content writing something I anticipate will never be played, and I write just for the sake of enjoyment of composing (however stressful).

To Matthew Schwartz: Like Charles Ives, people can write music, shelve it and feel happy just by getting it out. Sometimes dots on a page are all I need. :)

I compose for myself as if I'm writing a diary. its not for other people to see. its just for myself to express.

I would write music whether I thought it would ever be played or not. At the very least I can have a computer play it. Even if no one hears that computerized version of my music it doesn't matter to me because I still get to hear it. Composing for other people, or only when there's a likely performance, or only when there's money involved, all seem like bad reasons to me. Maybe it's not true but I've always felt that the people who make the best music are the ones who are doing it for no other reason than to put themselves out there no matter how likely it is that anyone will listen. It's like the difference between Morton Feldman and Backstreet Boys. One of these wrote to express something while the other wrote to make a buck and be famous.

Somewhat related to this whole topic, has anyone ever checked out Henry Darger? This guy was a janitor who wrote stories and created art for years and never even bothered to try and get someone else to check it out. He wrote one of the longest books in history even. I have a lot of respect for a guy like that.

At this point, I compose purely for my own enjoyment. But I do keep the prospect of actual performances in mind, and compose accordingly. Otherwise, it would be like writing a book which no one could read.

Sometimes I just can't fathom why I'd prefer to write something for some Orchestra or Ensemble to butcher and misrepresent my creative efforts. I mean, it may be scraggy, but it's MY scraggy, and MY scraggy don't stink, as the expression goes.

Maybe that's an unhealthy attitude. Maybe it's just the fact that I've had my works performed in the past and gotten mixed results depending on the ensemble. I, for one, think there's a bit of volatility in the arena right now. I can compose what I believe is an incredibly well-crafted, complex piece of art. It can be beautiful to me, and someone can come along and call it crap for reasons they don't even understand.

I had a well-crafted Wind Ensemble piece with playable parts and a lot of myself in the piece. It was one of my most successful works considering what I wanted to accomplish (healthy mixture of theme, extended harmony, and formal development). I put this piece in front of a professor when I was taking lessons as a Masters student. Without hearing the work or even thinking about what he was trying to accomplish with me, he said it was crap. I asked him why he thought it was crap. His response?

"It has a theme. It's tonal. It's rhythmically square, and it's not very interesting to me. It's crap."

And had I thought about it long and hard, I would have dropped the degree then and there, because it is painfully obvious to me that my philosophy of music blended with his (and the Composition Faculty's) about as well as oil and water. Too bad I stuck that one out, and I may be "better" for it for the experience. But it didn't do anything for my music, my inner voice, or my aspirations to create what I yearn to hear. It was his ideology he was interested in, not my goals or my best interests.

So when he asked me why I like to compose in a later lesson, I told him point blank, "I don't, not for you." He laughed. He thought I was joking. Idiot. And he gets paid to do this to people. It disgusts me.

Compose because you want to create what you want to hear, and never let anyone tell you different. You can experiment when you're comfortable doing that or desperate for new sounds and new ideas. Don't compose for the sake of music or for the sake of someone else's philosophy. It's your music. It's your life. Don't waste your time worrying about who's going to play it or who's going to want to hear it. Even if you are your only audience, then you've enriched the life of at least one person. The odds are against you that you will ever be your only audience. There's always someone out there ready to hear your work and love it. You just have to be creative enough to put it out there for them to hear.

Well, maybe somewhat, but I do agree that you shouldn't just write the music your professors want you to write. I find it important that a professor gives honest critique (which certainly might be quite subjective) and encourages you to try out other stuff, but a composition teacher still should allow you to compose in your own fashion in the end. I find it ok if a teacher says "I don't like your piece because XYZ", but she or he still should be able to guide you along your personal musical path, even if it's not a path they personally enjoy. If they can't do that, I recommend getting another teacher, or if there are no alternatives at your school, going to a different one. Studying with a teacher who can't cater to your musical aims at all is pretty much useless.

But still, I don't think it's "wasted time" to think about who will play your music, where you place yourself in the "musical world" (i.e. what kind of music do others compose?), what your actual musical aims are, etc. That doesn't mean that these things have to confine you, but thinking about such fundamental things still shouldn't be neglected entirely. Composing what you want to compose might be the main goal, but I'm against doing so mindlessly. Be interested in what others write, think critically about it, think critically about your own musical aims and so on. A reflective process certainly does help ones music in the end, I think.

Studying with a teacher who can't cater to your musical aims at all is pretty much useless.

Well, it really depends on how much flexibility you allow yourself. A teacher is just a teacher, and you can write all the music you want without him knowing or caring in your non-study time. If you're in an institution it means that you can get the chance to perform stuff later on your own if you know enough people who are interested in your music, and the whole thing with making your own ensemble.

Like we've said in the other thread about composition teachers, there sure is an "ideal" for what they should be like. But, I find it's also good practice to do what other people say even if you don't personally agree with it, just like a good teacher will work even if it's against his personal preference. Trying to find preference and taste where there was previously none is a good exercise.

For example: Don't like atonal music? Well, I bet that if you wrote enough you'd end up writing atonal music that YOU liked. It's just like any technique and style, it bends to the preferences of the composer. But it's impossible to KNOW how that works or try it if "taste" gets in the way of education, something which I don't think should ever happen. That composition studies are guided by taste is one thing, but being crippled by it is something entirely different.

All true. There's certainly more than just your main composition teacher to profit from when studying at an institution. And I definitely agree that it's good to do exercises that lie outside your normal area of interest. But the point is that those are exercises. They -might- become more than that of course, but before that happens you probably won't accept them as meaningful compositions by yourself. If you want to write an "authentical" composition, it probably needs to be something you want to write, at least to a certain degree. But yeah, that doesn't mean you shouldn't also do other stuff and it may very well happen that sooner or later you'll find your own expression in foreign musical zones.

But to get back to the teacher question: While it is certainly right that your life doesn't depend on one teacher alone, if you -do- have a teacher you might as well try to get a good one. If you're spending your core class with a teacher with whom you can't reasonably communicate you might do better composing without a teacher and just make use of the other opportunities a music institution has to offer. And with that I don't mean a teacher who doesn't share your musical tastes or tries to open your mind to other musical realms (which is all good), but a teacher who's unable to pick you up where you are, understand your perspective and from there go onward.

And on further consideration, I probably wouldn't even call such a teacher bad, just inadequate for you. I probably would have problems too teaching a student whose musical aims are absolutely contrary to my own musical ideas. I'd ask the student to look for another teacher, I guess.

If you're spending your core class with a teacher with whom you can't reasonably communicate you might do better composing without a teacher and just make use of the other opportunities a music institution has to offer. And with that I don't mean a teacher who doesn't share your musical tastes or tries to open your mind to other musical realms (which is all good), but a teacher who's unable to pick you up where you are, understand your perspective and from there go onward.

Totally. That's just a failure to teach altogether if you can't work with the student on any basic level such as those.

That's a little unrealistic... unhumanistic and not gonna get you anywhere.

Well, I don't know what your background is, but I don't see why that should be unrealistic. Look, it's my money, and I have goals I want to accomplish in my music that I'm paying a professor, a PROFESSIONAL TEACHER OF MUSIC, to teach me. The problem isn't that they wouldn't teach me, it's more that many of the professors I've had (I've probably studied with six composition professors over seven years) don't remember how to compose tonal music.

I had a professor who showed us the very last tonal piece he ever wrote back when he was a bachelors student. That's pretty sad, but it's true. There's an ideology behind the whole movement from Romanticism to Modernism and later what we see in contemporary "art music" today that ties almost directly into our shift into the modern scientific age. It's not to say I don't think of the music as "interesting," I do, but I also find it repulsive that professional instructors today are preferring to teach one over the other instead of teaching all of it. "Students will get it in Theory Class, you don't need me to teach it to you."

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

"Students will get it in Theory Class, you don't need me to teach it to you."

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

It's true though. It's basically why any worthwhile composition teacher is going to prefer working on specific things rather than throwing "well learn 18th century counterpoint" into the curriculum. You're SUPPOSED to already know everything to a certain degree historically if you're shooting for proper composition education.

A composition teacher can't really "teach you counterpoint" so to speak, nor is it his job. He can tell you a little of a technique and modern/historical uses, but the traditional stuff must be learned outside on your own or in the other classes you're supposed to attend. It's a given that you have to master the old forms and harmony, etc etc, if you're going for a balanced composition education.

It's precisely because the traditional and classic forms/styles/bla are SO WELL COVERED that composition profs specialize in everything that doesn't get default covering, such as modern techniques, history, etc etc. Though some places do have courses on modern music and modern art history respectively, it's a branch of the study that doesn't have the same attention and emphasis as the traditional things.

You don't really need a composition professor if your goal is historical accuracy; you need a musicologist and a historian instead. A composition teacher/prof is only helpful if you'll be composing something that deals with what isn't found on textbooks and just simple traditions in practice. Or, well, with the personality of the student and the times we live in.

Though, a good composition prof will also master all the traditional/historical things as well for good measure and is expected to have an extensive knowledge of just about everything. But the actual work isn't centered around history or tradition but actual composition today.

AA,

That's a little unrealistic... unhumanistic and not gonna get you anywhere.

This is a strange statement to me. Was it unrealistic for Wagner to write exactly what he wanted to write? Are you saying he spent his time playing up to what other people want? Or how about Schoenberg? Or Philip Glass? Or even Beethoven? I've read stories that equate to him blowing off anyone who didn't see his self-proclaimed genius. You also have Debussy who had teachers that told him his music didn't make any sense. Erik Satie had the same problem. Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue was highly criticized because it didn't fit the standard german ideas of development.

I think we could go on and on naming composers who seemed to write for themselves, judging by the amount of criticism they received by the musical establishment at the time. To me, it's much more realistic and humanistic to write for yourself, expressing your own thoughts and feelings, than to try to please those around you. To me, the second option makes the composer sound like a dot writing machine instead of a human expressing themselves.

EDIT: And my statements don't exclude the idea of focusing on communicating something to your listeners. I'm just saying you should be doing it in your own way.

I had a professor who showed us the very last tonal piece he ever wrote back when he was a bachelors student. That's pretty sad, but it's true. There's an ideology behind the whole movement from Romanticism to Modernism and later what we see in contemporary "art music" today that ties almost directly into our shift into the modern scientific age. It's not to say I don't think of the music as "interesting," I do, but I also find it repulsive that professional instructors today are preferring to teach one over the other instead of teaching all of it. "Students will get it in Theory Class, you don't need me to teach it to you."

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

Actually, if I understood your objection correctly, you appear to have a misconception about the duties of a composition teacher.

Teaching you what can be learned in "Theory Class" is not within those duties.

I suspect that you went to a school and did not even talk to the teachers before applying? Because so far, all you've done is bad mouth the institution where you went for your grad degree.

Speaking for myself, I approached three different institutions before settling on my final choice. I had appointments with the composition teachers I would have ended up with had I chosen those institutions. I basically got to "test drive" each one, and see how I got on with them.

My suspicion is also that you would be considerably happier with a degree in another specialization than composition, if what you say about your institution is true.

Sadly, I don't know how to say it in English, however, a degree in "techniques d'

Well, this post has been FAR too positive and encouraging... it needs to end on a scallopy note :P, so, here goes: you appear to be the author of your compositional misfortunes. I put the blame squarely on your shoulders. You should have taken the test drive first.

Well, maybe he had no other choice? There were no other institutions nearby or he couldn't afford anything better? ? ?

It's a little harsh to say what you said there without knowing under what conditions it happened. I know personally I had no choice with whom I studied composition when I did, but for other circumstances. Though, I did meet him before hand and we talked a lot, it wasn't a total surprise when it worked out just fine but I can't help thinking I just got lucky.

But those things are better left answered by the guy in question, rather than speculating.

I am lucky, because in my school our music department is large and close knit. So basically if some one says no to performing my peice, I have an attack dog. (my theory teachoer) and since most kids are in his class *grins*

Every one has this benefit in my school. I would personally grab some of my close friends form an ensemble and write for it. Doesnt matter if its out of the ordinary. Get who you can and write for it. Then get some songs down. Now hold a concert.

AA -

Hardest thing to realize about your compositions is that they are NOT you -- possibly a shard of glass reflecting your personality, maybe a snapshot of you reaction to something --- all intermingled with what comes to you from the world and what comes out from you all imperfectly. None of it being the sum of what you are at the moment.

Therefore, if you are in doubt about yout "progress", then show your portfolio to another composition teacher (preferably at another institution) or a professional musician. Also, many composers make the most progress AFTER they finish school.

Lastly, please appreciate that you were accepted into a graduate program for composition. There are some people on this board who have taken composition seriously much later in life and find that the financial support possible when you were just out of high school or undergrad is far less. I would also not romanicize the janitors and lawyers who managed to write huge unpublished novels or symphonies -- they sacrificed (willingly, granted) much social time and some job development and finances to do their passion and, unlike the propaganda you see in the media, they had quite a few moments when they considered chucking the whole damn thing.

I always compose for others. I mean, whats good about writing music if you don't let people hear it?

I dont really excel as one, but I usually tend to write for people whom I know and will be able to perform my music.

My music was not meant to be heard on a computer only. :)

Well, this post has been FAR too positive and encouraging... it needs to end on a scallopy note :P, so, here goes: you appear to be the author of your compositional misfortunes. I put the blame squarely on your shoulders. You should have taken the test drive first.

Actually, I speak of both institutions I've attended (and I've really only badmouthed one instructor - and to be fair, I don't even talk about the institution itself, which is actually a very reputable place). This test drive you speak of is a bit of a challenge for someone who didn't exactly grow up on a middle class income level. You may have been able to visit three, five, ten institutions or more by plane, boat, car, or whatever. The "test drive" is just as costly, and there's never a sure-fire way to know that you'll get the best for your dollar.

Truth be told, I met the one professor I wanted to study with before ever deciding on whether to continue my education. He showed me scores of his work, told me about how his style is contemporary but draws from different influences. It seemed a good bet to me that he could teach me what I was looking for. Then, when I actually enrolled in classes my first semester, he was overloaded with students so I had to take lessons from a different instructor (the one I had problems with). I finally had him as an instructor, and many of the very things YOU and FLINT seem to agree are problems with the work I posted are things I was instructed to do in his lessons.

I take full responsibility for my decision to attend at all. It seems wherever I've gone, I've been thrown in the same, tired cesspool of composers who want to make a name for themselves by creating the next original method of composition, constantly reinventing themselves along the way as they come up with new this, new that, new, new, new... and it gets so old! I took two years off from college to recollect myself and still managed to repeat my mistakes by going back to a university for the education I wanted to have.

I'm sorry, but I highly disagree with your assessment of the "role" of a composition teacher. Theory classes are for studying "the theory" behind music. Composition lessons are for putting some or all of the theory "into relevant practice". If you take four semesters of music theory and only one of those covers contemporary music of the 20th century, then why only focus on "putting into practice" music of the 20th century? Why NOT put into practice all of the theory by using the concepts to put multiple styles into practice? There's nothing stopping any competent composition professor from helping a student create quality work from any of the dozens of harmonic languages out there.

We can go around in circles all day about what the "role" of a composition instructor is, but I don't think the distinction gets any more basic than this - Theory and Practice. If I had the financial capability to travel across the country to find a reputable school teaching composition the way I would expect them to teach it, believe me, I'd have done it a LONG time ago. Maybe you don't see this as a "reasonable" expectation, but if you're spending the better part of your young life attaining a Doctorate to teach composition and are worth your salt to sit in that office and teach me something that is relevant to what excites me about music, you better earn your keep and not shrug my interests off because I want to learn something that bores you. That's exactly what happens in this region of the country at almost every school I've visited (including those where I've attended festivals, lectures, etc - there are several).

I don't buy into this "role" of the composition teacher you seem to have. I'm extending myself financially to pay his salary in exchange for information I need that he should have as a professional instructor. A composition professor should come AT LEAST the other 50% of the way. You can still teach me what interests you. You can still have me write a piece you want me to write as long as you're going to help me write the piece I've dreamed of writing. I think that's not only fair, it's responsible teaching and instruction.

Sorry if this offends those of you that teach composition for a living. Truly, I mean no offense, but I certainly hope some of my insight helps you see the other side of the coin. It's not that I have disdain or disapproval for every composition teacher out there. Hell, there's GOT to be SOMEONE out there that could actually meet these expectations and more. If not, well, then it's just sad to think how much has been lost to the Modern age if we think it's ok for a school to stand behind the idea that it's fine just not practicing the use of tonality anymore. That's exactly what I was being fed at every institution I visited. Forgive me if I don't eagerly jump on the next plane to visit ten more institutions in the hopes that I'll find what we should all expect to find at any reputable college. Forgive me if that's just too much to ask for.

AA, I think you're misunderstanding what I meant.

What I meant was that a composition teacher's role is not to TEACH theory. It is, as you said, to train the student to apply it in a practical way.

I'm sorry my "joke" was taken so seriously. That will teach me to use my real-life sassy manner on a forum.

However, still, you are responsible for the predicament in which you found yourself. It is up to you to get assurances that the teacher of your choice will be available as your instructor. If no such assurances are forthcoming, then you should delay your application to that school, or seek elsewhere.

As for the money issue, no one said it was cheap. It's a huge investment, and sacrifices need to be made. It IS after all the rest of your life you're talking about, so you need to invest in finding the right institution and the right teacher.

I waited 10 years before getting my master's degree. Simply because I would have been stuck with a bunch of avant-garde teachers.

However, that being said, you know, you can STILL learn from these people, even if what they are writing, and what they are encouraging you to write, are not quite your ideal.

AA, I think you're misunderstanding what I meant.

No, I get it, and I appreciate where you are coming from and your advice to me. Too late, though. Mistakes have been made. I'm trying to move on and give others the flashing lights as I drive by, so to speak.

What I meant was that a composition teacher's role is not to TEACH theory. It is, as you said, to train the student to apply it in a practical way.

Yes, well, that's what I've been saying all along. Where have I stated that a composition instructor should teach me theory? Don't think I did. We agree then on what a composition teacher's role is, then? What is it that we're in disagreement on? The expectations we should have for a composition instructor teaching at a well-established school of music?

However, still, you are responsible for the predicament in which you found yourself. It is up to you to get assurances that the teacher of your choice will be available as your instructor. If no such assurances are forthcoming, then you should delay your application to that school, or seek elsewhere.

We're all responsible for our actions. I never once passed the blame off to someone else. I had expectations, I didn't have the financial ability to make visits to hundreds of schools to find the ones that taught ALL music and not just avant guard, and I took a leap of faith. And I'll be paying for it whether or not it taught me anything significant about music at all.

As for the money issue, no one said it was cheap. It's a huge investment, and sacrifices need to be made. It IS after all the rest of your life you're talking about, so you need to invest in finding the right institution and the right teacher.

Again, too late. I'm not about to go back to school and pay someone to teach me to put into practice what the first instructor should have taught. I know enough now to teach myself (hopefully) and should be able to get all the help I need from you fine people here. I fear it's too little far too late, though, as I'll have student debt piled up and another career to have to pursue until I'm out of debt. Too bad.

I waited 10 years before getting my master's degree. Simply because I would have been stuck with a bunch of avant-garde teachers.

However, that being said, you know, you can STILL learn from these people, even if what they are writing, and what they are encouraging you to write, are not quite your ideal.

Yes, you can still learn from these people, but it's like pulling teeth at the dentist's office. You can't get to the information you need without having ten tired debates or more about whether or not tonality is a contemporary harmonic language. You end up spending three quarters of your time debating music and less than a fourth of it fumbling through harmonies while your instructor asks you, "Well, what harmony do YOU think you should use here?" Hehe... all the while, the instructor's thinking back to his beginning years of theory trying to remember what prepares the dominant...

Ok, that's a bit unfair and far-reaching now, but it may not be ten, twenty years from now. Still, it's possible considering the way the divisions continue to reproduce themselves through the generations.

No, I get it, and I appreciate where you are coming from and your advice to me. Too late, though. Mistakes have been made. I'm trying to move on and give others the flashing lights as I drive by, so to speak.

Well, I guess it's very personal what each person needs to move on in their creative growth as an artist and such. For me? I needed to get into the avant-garde (if we can call it that), and I didn't know I need it until I was right there living it. It doesn't mean it was the only thing that mattered, but it changed a lot of my opinions positively.

I get the feeling a lot of people get into classical music listening to the good'ol composers (Mozart, Brahms, etc etc) and not cuz they love Ligeti or Cage. So obviously, the panorama for composition today is probably a shock to them.

And I'm not sure what sort of teacher you had, but today postmodernism is all the rage (despite that nobody can agree what it means) and techniques such as collage and pluralism exist where you can mix a lot of things and techniques.

It's precisely because of this past/future/!? relationship in modern music that traditional things are even more important today than perhaps during the 60s (though even Berio and Cage took a LOT of things from tradition, and everyone who was anyone knew their stuff, history, and so on.)

So really, just bad luck. I really can't say that your experience represents the typical composition teacher standard. Or something.

Back on topic. The point of my whole rant was this:

The reasons anyone composes are truly their own (and I suppose their preference of what they compose are as well). I wasn't trying to steer the whole thread off course (which I probably did, but it's good discussion to have). I merely bring up my own experience for others to see that music as an art form doesn't wait on you anymore to come along and bring it out of the shadow. It's the composer who is in the shadow, and by whatever means they choose to either stay in the shadow or put themselves out there with performances and the like are all justifiable.

To answer the question, there really is no reason to compose other than for your own reasons. If you don't do it, someone else will come along later and do it. Music lives and breaths with or without us. There's always something unique to be heard that will be discovered, with or without you.

I have to go and finish this piece now. It's ringing in my ears and I can't even concentrate.

...there really is no reason to compose other than for your own reasons. If you don't do it, someone else will ...

I can think of one reason... ;)

$$$

You gotta do what'cha gotta do!

...I wasn't trying to steer the whole thread off course (which I probably did, but it's good discussion to have).

By all means, start a thread. ;) There's a few things I might poke at in your comments as well.